This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order, dated 01-12-2009, in I.A.No.1550 of 2009 in O.S.No.58 of 2009, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, whereunder and whereby the application filed under Order I Rule 10 (2) r/w Section151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) to implead the petitioner herein as defendant No.3 in the main suit O.S.No.58 of 2009, was dismissed.

2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present revision petition may be stated as follows:

The petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.47 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy for specific performance against the respondents 2 and 3 herein who are being represented by their General Power of Attorney holder Satyanarayana Soni, in respect of 14 flats in third floor bearing Nos. 302, 303, 306 to 308, 310 to 314 and 316 to 319 and Shop Nos. 4 and 10 out of the apartment Chandra Towers in Sy.No.313 Part, Rajampet, Sangareddy, Medak District. It is further averred in the petition that the defendants therein having received summons, failed to appear before the Court and the case was posted to 28-08-2009 for ex parte evidence. On coming to know about filing of the suit by the petitioner in O.S.No.47 of 2009,the GPA holder of respondents 2 and 3 is trying to avoid the execution of contract and therefore, he colluded with the respondent No.1,who in turn, filed the above suit O.S.No.58 of 2009 for specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property, which is one and the same of the schedule property as mentioned in O.S.No.47 of 2009. The respondents 2 and 3 and their GPA holder are trying to resile from the contract entered with him after having received the entire amount towards sale consideration. With such oblique motive and ill intention, respondents 2 and 3 and their GPA holder have set up the respondent No.1 by creating all false and concocted documents. He has got substantial interest in the suit schedule property covered under both the suits, which are one and the same. The issues, witnesses and the documents are also similar. In order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and for bringing out true facts before the Court, he may be impleaded as party in O.S.No.58 of 2009.

3. The 1st respondent-plaintiff filed counter stating that the petition is not maintainable in the eye of law. He denied about the petitioner filing suit in O.S.No.47 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy for specific performance of agreement of sale against the respondents 2 and 3 and their GPA holder in respect of the suit schedule property. The petitioner did not file any documentary evidence in respect of the said allegations. As the defendants in the suit did not appear, they were rightly set ex parte and the matter was posted for evidence. Accordingly, he filed his affidavit evidence. Since the trial has already been commenced, the present petition to implead the petitioner as party does not arise. Being unconcerned person to the above suit, the petitioner has got no locus standi to raise any objection against the 1st respondent. Since the petitioner is no way concerned with the suit schedule property in any manner, he is not entitled to raise any claim or adverse rights against the respondents or their vendor. The allegation that the respondents and their vendor have colluded to defeat the rights of the petitioner is denied. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the petition.

4. The trial Court after considering the material on record, dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner was a third party to the agreement and therefore, he cannot be impleaded as party in the suit as he already filed a suit in O.S.No.47 of 2009 against the respondents 2 and 3 and their GPA holder. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitio